Posts Tagged ‘income tax’

« Older Entries

New law keeps payroll tax cut in place through February of 2012

Tuesday, December 27th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

On December 23, Congress passed H.R. 3765, the “Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011” (the TTCA). The bill was signed into law by President Obama shortly thereafter. The tax provisions of the TTCA consist of a two-month temporary extension of the payroll tax cut that’s in place for 2011, plus a parallel extension of a lower Self Employment Contributions Act (SECA) tax rate on self-employment income.

Overview. The Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) imposes two taxes on employers, employees, and self-employed workers—one for Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI; commonly known as the Social Security tax), and the other for Hospital Insurance (HI; commonly known as the Medicare tax).

Before passage of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (the 2010 Tax Relief Act, P.L. 111-312), the FICA tax rate for employees and employers was 7.65% each—6.2% for OASDI and 1.45% for HI. Under the SECA tax, self-employment income of self-employed taxpayers was subject to a tax of 15.3%—12.4% for OASDI and 2.9% for HI. There is a maximum amount of compensation subject to the OASDI tax (the wage base), but no maximum for HI. (The wage base is $106,800 for 2011 and $110,100 for 2012.) Similar rules apply under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA).

Under pre-2010 Tax Relief Act law, for computing the income tax of an individual, Code Sec. 164(f) allowed an above-the-line deduction equal to 50% of the amount of the SECA tax imposed on the individual’s self-employment income for the tax year.

Under Code Sec. 1402(a)(12), a taxpayer is allowed a deduction in computing net earnings from self-employment equal to: (1) net earnings from self-employment as determined before taking the Code Sec. 1402(a)(12) deduction into account, multiplied by (2) one-half the sum of the OASDI tax rate and the HI tax rate. This deduction is allowed in computing net earnings from self-employment in lieu of the Code Sec. 164(f) above-the-line deduction of one-half of the self-employment tax. Thus, the Code Sec. 164(f) deduction can’t be taken in computing self-employment tax liability. The Code Sec. 1402(a)(12) deduction is designed to put the self-employed in the same position as employees in that they don’t have to pay self-employment tax on about half of the amount of the tax itself.

Temporary tax cut for 2011. For remuneration received during 2011, the 2010 Tax Relief Act reduced the employee OASDI tax rate under the FICA tax by two percentage points to 4.2%. Similarly, for self-employment income for tax years beginning in 2011, the Act reduced the OASDI tax rate under the SECA tax by two percentage points to 10.4% percent. As a result, for 2011, employees pay only 4.2% Social Security tax on wages up to $106,800 and self-employed individuals pay only 10.4% Social Security self-employment taxes on self-employment income up to $106,800.

The 2010 Tax Relief Act provided rules for coordination with deductions for employment taxes, as follows.

The Code Sec. 164(f) income tax deduction allowed for tax years beginning in 2011 is computed at the rate of 59.6% of the OASDI tax paid, plus one half of the HI tax paid.

A new percentage (59.6%) replaces the rate of one half (50%) allowed under pre-2010 Tax Relief Act law for this portion of the deduction. The new percentage is necessary to continue to allow the self-employed taxpayer to deduct the full amount of the employer portion of SECA taxes. The employer OASDI tax rate remains at 6.2%, while the employee portion falls to 4.2%. Thus, the employer share of total OASDI taxes is 6.2 divided by 10.4, or 59.6% of the OASDI portion of SECA taxes.

However, the two-percentage-point reduction is not taken into account in determining the Code Sec. 1402 SECA tax deduction allowed for determining the amount of the net earnings from self-employment for the tax year.

New law. Under the TTCA, the reduced employee OASDI tax rate of 4.2% under the FICA tax, and the equivalent employee portion of the RRTA tax, is extended to apply to covered wages paid in the first two months of 2012. (Sec. 601(c) of the 2010 Tax Relief Act (P.L. 111-312), as amended by TTCA Sec. 101)

The TTCA also provides for a recapture of any benefit a taxpayer may have received from the reduction in the OASDI tax rate, and the equivalent employee portion of the RRTA tax, for remuneration received during the first two months of 2012 in excess of $18,350 (i.e., two-twelfths of the 2012 wage base of $110,100). (Sec. 601(g) of the 2010 Tax Relief Act (P.L. 111-312), as amended by TTCA Sec. 101) The recapture is accomplished by a tax equal to 2% of the amount of wages (and railroad compensation) received during the first two months of 2012 that exceed $18,350.

M&Q observation: A highlight of the TTCA issued by the House Ways & Means Committee on December 22, indicates that the recapture provision would apply only if the temporary payroll tax cut ends on Feb. 29, 2012. A House-Senate Conference will convene soon to consider extending the temporary payroll tax cut for the remainder of 2012.

For tax years beginning in 2012, the TTCA provides that the OASDI rate for a self-employed individual remains at 10.4%, for self-employment income of up to $18,350 (reduced by wages subject to the lower OASDI rate for 2012). (Sec. 601(f) of the 2010 Tax Relief Act (P.L. 111-312), as amended by TTCA Sec. 101) Related rules for 2011 concerning coordination of a self-employed individual’s deductions in determining net earnings from self-employment and income tax also apply for 2012, except that the income tax deduction allowed for the OASDI portion of SECA tax paid for tax years beginning in 2012 is computed at the rate of 59.6% of the OASDI tax paid on self-employment income of up to $18,350. For self-employment income in excess of this amount, the deduction is equal to half of the OASDI portion of the SECA tax paid. The Joint Committee on Taxation explanation of the TTCA says that the 59.6% used for the first $18,350 of self-employment income is necessary to continue to allow the self-employed taxpayer to deduct the full amount of the employer portion of SECA taxes. The employer OASDI tax rate remains at 6.2%, while the employee portion falls to a 4.2% rate for the first $18,350 of self-employment income. Thus, the employer share of total OASDI taxes is 6.2% divided by 10.4, or 59.6% of the OASDI portion of SECA taxes, for the first $18,350 of self-employment income.

Effective date. The above TTCA changes are effective for remuneration received during the months of January and February in 2012 and for self-employment income for tax years beginning in 2012. (TTCA Sec. 101(c)).

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Current Events, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Top 10 Tax Developments of 2011

Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

As 2011 draws to a close, many tax developments will likely continue to make headlines and influence tax planning in 2012. In the usual tradition, we present a “Top 10 ” list of tax developments that may prove useful to practitioners as 2012 begins.

1. Fate of Bush-era tax cuts unresolved

2011 ended without any resolution of the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act of 2010 (2010 Tax Relief Act) extended the Bush-era tax cuts through 2012. President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, reportedly came close to an agreement in August 2011 to extend some of the Bush-era tax cuts as part of a comprehensive deficit reduction package. When their agreement fell apart, many Washington observers predicted the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction would address the Bush-era tax cuts in a deficit reduction package. The Deficit Reduction Committee announced in November that it failed to reach an agreement and disbanded.

Comment

The fate of the Bush-era tax cuts may ultimately be decided by the lame-duck Congress, which will meet after the November 2012 elections. The outcome of the presidential election and which party controls the House and Senate will undoubtedly influence whatever decision lawmakers take over the Bush-era tax cuts.

2. Rollback of tax legislation

Congress repealed three tax laws in 2011: expanded business information reporting, real property expense reporting and three percent government withholding.

Business information reporting. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) required businesses, charities and government entities to file information returns (Forms 1099) for all payments of $600 or more in a calendar year to a single vendor, other than a tax-exempt vendor. The PPACA also repealed the long-standing reporting exception for payments made to corporations. The PPACA’s expansion of business information reporting proved universally unpopular. Congress passed the Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection Act in April 2011. The Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection Act repeals the expanded business information reporting provisions in the PPACA as if they have never been enacted.

Rental property expense reporting. The Small Business Jobs Act of 2010 required landlords to file a Form 1099 to report certain rental property expense payments of $600 or more. The Comprehensive 1099 Taxpayer Protection Act also repealed rental expense reporting as if it had never been enacted.

Government withholding. The Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2007 imposed three percent withholding on payments for goods or services to contractors made by federal, state and local governments. In November 2011, President Obama signed the 3% Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act, which repeals three percent government withholding as if it had never been enacted.

3. Foreign accounts

The Treasury Department and the IRS continued to focus on foreign account reporting in 2011. Three developments were interconnected: implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), FBAR filings and the 2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI).

FATCA. The IRS continued to implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) in 2011. FATCA generally requires certain U.S. taxpayers holding specified foreign financial assets to report information about these assets on a new form to be attached to the taxpayer’s return. Additionally, foreign financial institutions must report certain information about accounts held by U.S. taxpayers. In July 2011, the IRS announced it intended to provide for a phased implementation of the FATCA requirements for foreign financial institutions. In December 2011, the IRS issued guidance about new Form 8938, Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets.

FBAR. The Treasury Department issued final rules on Form TD-F 90-22.1, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) in February 2011. The final rules retain and clarify the requirement to report signature or other authority over a foreign financial account. The final rules also reserved the treatment of investment companies other than mutual funds or similar pooled funds. In related news, the Treasury Department announced that taxpayers may electronically file the FBAR; previously, electronic filing was not an option for the FBAR.

OVDI. The IRS launched a campaign in 2011 to encourage taxpayers to voluntarily disclose unreported offshore accounts. The 2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (OVDI) rewarded taxpayers who came forward voluntarily with a reduced penalty framework (although not as generous as a similar program in 2009). The 2011 OVDI closed on September 9, 2011. In December, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman reported that the agency has received more than 33,000 voluntary disclosures since 2009.

4. IRS help for distressed taxpayers

The IRS announced in February 2011 a series of measures intended to help good-faith taxpayers who cannot meet their tax obligations. The IRS “Fresh Start” initiative generally allows lien withdrawals for taxpayers entering into direct debit installment agreements (and for taxpayers who convert from a regular installment agreement to a direct debit agreement). The IRS also announced it would make streamlined installment agreements available to more small businesses. Qualified small businesses with $25,000 or less in unpaid taxes can participate in the streamlined installment agreement program.

Comment

According to Commissioner Douglas Shulman and other top agency officials, IRS personnel have been instructed to be more flexible in helping distressed taxpayers.

5. Worker classification

The IRS launched a new program in September 2011 to enable employers to voluntarily reclassify their workers for federal employment tax purposes and take advantage of a reduced penalty framework. The Voluntary Classification System Program (VCSP) is open to employers currently treating their workers as independent contractors or other nonemployees and who want to prospectively treat the workers as employees. The employer must not be under audit and satisfy other requirements. The IRS has not announced an end-date to the VCSP.

6. Basis overstatement regs

The Supreme Court agreed in September 2011 to resolve a split among the federal courts of appeal over IRS regs (TD 9515) that impose a six-year limitations period on assessments due to overstated basis (Home Concrete & Supply, LLC, 2011-1 ustc ¶50,207). The government asked the Supreme Court to decide, among other questions, whether an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis in sold property is an omission from income that can trigger the six-year assessment period.

Comment

In March 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the basis overstatement regs under Chevron-deference (Grapevine Imports, Ltd., 2011-1 ustc ¶50,264).

7. Mid-year mileage rate increase

For the third time in six years, the IRS announced a mid-year adjustment to the business standard mileage rate because of rising gasoline prices. The business standard mileage rate increased from 51 cents-per-mile to 55.5 cents-per-mile for the second half of 2011. The medical/moving standard mileage rate increased from 19 cents-per-mile to 23.5 cents-per-mile for the second half of 2011. Congress did not make a mid-year adjustment to the charitable standard mileage rate, which remained at 14 cents-per-mile for the second half of 2011.

Comment

For 2012, the business standard mileage rate is 55.5 cents-per-mile and the medical/moving standard mileage rate is 23 cents-per-mile. The statutorily-determined charitable standard mileage rate remains at 14 cents-per-mile for 2012.

8. Return preparer oversight

The IRS moved forward with its return preparer oversight initiative in 2011, defining the new designation “registered tax return preparer” and launching the registered tax return preparer competency examination. In June, the IRS issued final Circular 230 regulations, which clarified professional standards for certified public accountants (CPAs), enrolled agents (EAs) and registered tax return preparers. The IRS also fine-tuned its online preparer tax identification number (PTIN) registration system. Additionally, the IRS announced it would revisit its proposal to fingerprint certain PTIN applicants; a proposal which many tax professionals criticized as duplicative of their own employee background checks and too costly.

9. Mandatory e-file for preparers

Beginning January 1, 2011, specified tax return preparers who reasonably expected to file 100 or more covered returns in calendar year 2011 were required to file those returns electronically. The e-filing requirement was put in place by Congress in 2009. The IRS phased-in the requirement over two years (2011 and 2012). For calendar year 2012 (and subsequent years), the threshold for mandatory e-filing by specified tax return preparers is 11 or more covered returns. Firms must compute the number of covered returns in the aggregate that they reasonably expect to file as a firm. If the number is 11 or more in calendar year 2012 and subsequent years, all members of the firm must electronically file covered returns.

10. Updated PAL rules

The IRS issued proposed regs in November 2011 updating the definition of an interest in a limited partnership as a limited partner for purposes of the Code Sec. 469 passive activity loss (PAL) rules. Under the proposed regs, an interest in a limited liability company is treated as a limited partnership interest for the PAL rules.

Comment

The proposed regs reflect the evolution of the rules for limited partners since passage of the Uniform Limited Partnership Act of 1916.

Honorable mention

  • Congress bans tax strategy patents;
  • IRS helps organizations regain tax-exempt status after automatic revocation;
  • IRS responds to Hurricane Irene and many other natural disasters in 2011;
  • FUTA surtax expires mid-year;
  • Congress expands Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) for veterans;
  • Supreme Court agrees to hear arguments on PPACA;
  • IRS issues final regs on Code Sec. 6707A penalty.
No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Rhode Island—Personal Income Tax: Figures for Tax Year 2012 Provided

Tuesday, December 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

The Rhode Island Division of Taxation has provided personal income taxpayers with the standard deduction and personal and dependency exemption amounts as well as the tax rate schedule for tax year 2012. State law requires annual adjustments for inflation. The standard deduction amounts are as follows: $7,800 for single or married filing separate filing status, $15,600 for married filing joint, and $11,700 for head of household. The personal and dependency exemption amount is $3,650, and the phaseout range for exemptions is $181,900 to $202,700. The tax rate schedule is 3.75% for $0 to $57,150 in income; 4.75% for $57,150 to $129,900; and 5.99% for $129,900 and above.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Massachusetts—Personal Income Tax: Part B Income Tax Rate Reduced

Monday, December 19th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

The Massachusetts Department of Revenue has announced that for tax years after 2011 the Part B personal income tax rate will be reduced to 5.25% (previously 5.3%). The tax rate for Part B income is subject to reduction by 0.05% if the inflation-adjusted growth in baseline taxes in the fiscal year ending June 30 of the previous year exceeds 2.5% and the inflation-adjusted growth in baseline taxes for each consecutive three-month period reported by the Commissioner of Revenue between August and December of the previous year is greater than zero. There is a minimum rate of 5%.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Current Events, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Seven Tax Tips for Recently Married Taxpayers

Thursday, August 25th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
IRS Summertime Tax Tip 2011-20, August 19, 2011

With the summer wedding season in full swing, the Internal Revenue Service advises the soon-to-be married and the just married to review their changing tax status. If you recently got married or are planning a wedding, the last thing on your mind is taxes. However, there are some important steps you need to take to avoid stress at tax time. Here are seven tips for newlyweds.

  1. Notify the Social Security Administration Report any name change to the Social Security Administration so your name and Social Security number will match when you file your next tax return. File a Form SS-5, Application for a Social Security Card, at your local SSA office. The form is available on SSA’s website at www.ssa.gov, by calling 800-772-1213 or at local offices.
  2. Notify the IRS if you move If you have a new address you should notify the IRS by sending Form 8822, Change of Address. You may download Form 8822 from www.IRS.gov or order it by calling 800–TAX–FORM (800–829–3676).
  3. Notify the U.S. Postal Service You should also notify the U.S. Postal Service when you move so it can forward any IRS correspondence or refunds. 
  4. Notify your employer Report any name and address changes to your employer(s) to make sure you receive your Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, after the end of the year. 
  5. Check your withholding If both you and your spouse work, your combined income may place you in a higher tax bracket. You can use the IRS Withholding Calculator available on www.irs.gov to assist you in determining the correct amount of withholding needed for your new filing status. The IRS Withholding Calculator will give you the information you need to complete a new Form W-4, Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate. You can fill it out and print it online and then give the form to your employer(s) so they withhold the correct amount from your pay.
  6. Select the right tax form Choosing the right individual income tax form can help save money. Newly married taxpayers may find that they now have enough deductions to itemize on their tax returns. Itemized deductions must be claimed on a Form 1040, not a 1040A or 1040EZ.
  7. Choose the best filing status A person’s marital status on Dec. 31 determines whether the person is considered married for that year. Generally, the tax law allows married couples to choose to file their federal income tax return either jointly or separately in any given year. Figuring the tax both ways can determine which filing status will result in the lowest tax, but usually filing jointly is more beneficial.

For more information about changing your name, address and income tax withholding visit www.irs.gov.  IRS forms and publications can be obtained from www.irs.gov or by calling 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676).

Links:

YouTube Video:
No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning

Using IRAs in Estate Planning

Monday, August 22nd, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) are a popular investment tool for retirement, but they also need to be taken into account when doing estate planning. Although IRAs can be used to provide for heirs either directly or through a trust, to what extent your heirs will benefit from the IRA and avoid unnecessary taxes depends on proper planning.

What Is an IRA?
IRAs are personal savings plans that allow you to set aside money for retirement and create tax savings. The advantage of IRAs is that you may be able to deduct some or all of your contributions to an IRA from your taxes and also be eligible for a tax credit equal to a percentage of your contribution. Earnings in a traditional IRA are generally are not taxed until distributed to you. At age 70 1/2 you have to start taking distributions from a traditional IRA. Earnings in a Roth IRA are not taxed nor do you have to start taking distributions at any point, but contributions to a Roth IRA are not tax deductible. Any amount remaining in your IRA upon your death can be paid to your beneficiary or beneficiaries.

Rule Number One: Name Beneficiaries
From an estate planning perspective, the most important thing to remember with an IRA is to name a beneficiary. While a spouse is usually the logical choice for a beneficiary, you should be sure to name contingent beneficiaries as well. If you and your spouse died at the same time and there was no contingent beneficiary, then the IRA would go to your estate and be subject to probate (the legal process of administering the estate of a deceased person).

Stretching an IRA
If you don’t need the funds in your IRA for retirement and want to use them to provide for your beneficiaries instead, you may be interested in “stretching out” your IRA. To do this, when you reach 70 1/2, take only the required minimum distributions, leaving more assets in your IRA. When you die, your beneficiary can also stretch distributions out over his or her lifetime and then designate a second-generation beneficiary. It makes sense to name a young beneficiary because the younger the beneficiary, the smaller each distribution must be, which gives the funds in the IRA extra tax-deferred years to grow.

Trusts as Beneficiaries
In some cases, it may make sense to name a trust as a beneficiary. This is particularly true if you have minor children, children with special needs, or a beneficiary with poor spending habits. But the trust must be properly drafted to avoid negative tax consequences. If the trust is a “see-through” trust or “conduit” trust, then the distributions from the IRA to the trust after the participant’s death can be stretched out over the life expectancy of the oldest trust beneficiary. If you are planning to leave your IRA to a trust, you must consult with your attorney to ensure that the trust is properly drafted.

An IRA can be a valuable part of an estate plan, but the rules can be complicated. Consult with a qualified elder law or estate planning attorney, such as Jill E. Sugarman, Esq. to find out your options.  You may reach Attorney Sugarman at 401-421-5115 ext. 215 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Self-directed IRAs, Tax planning

Two Tax Court Decisions Clarify When Long-Term Care Expenses Are Deductible

Thursday, July 28th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

Long-term care can be very expensive, but many long-term care expenses can be deducted from your taxes. Two important recent decisions by the U.S. Tax Court provide guidance on when caregiving services are deductible. In one decision, the court ruled that payments to non-medical caregivers are still deductible as medical expenses; in the other, the court held that a written agreement is required in order for a deceased woman’s estate to deduct more than $1 million in care that her son allegedly provided her.

In the first case, Estate of Lillian Baral v. Commissioner, Lillian Baral suffered from dementia and her doctor recommended that she get 24-hour-a-day care. Her brother hired caregivers to assist Ms. Baral with daily activities. On her tax return, Ms. Baral included a deduction for medical expenses for the payments to the caregivers. The IRS said the expenses were not deductible and asked for more money. Following Ms. Baral’s death, her estate appealed the matter to the U.S. Tax Court.

Under tax law, expenses for medical care may be claimed as an itemized deduction if they exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. (Note that this threshold will rise to 10 percent of adjusted gross income in 2012.) The definition of medical expenses includes the cost of long-term care if a doctor has determined you are chronically ill. “Chronically ill” means you need help with activities like eating, going to the bathroom, bathing, and dressing, or you require substantial supervision due to a severe cognitive impairment.

The Tax Court agreed with Ms. Baral that the payments to the caregivers for assisting and supervising Ms. Baral are deductible medical expenses. The expenses qualified as long-term care services even though the caregivers were not medical personnel because a doctor had found that the services provided to Ms. Baral were necessary due to her dementia.

In the second case, Estate of Olivio v. Commissioner, New Jersey resident Anthony Olivo provided nearly full-time care to his mother from 1994 to 2003, during which time he largely abandoned his practice as an attorney. After his mother died, Mr. Olivo became administrator of her estate.

Mr. Olivo filed a tax return for the estate and claimed a deduction of $1.24 million as a debt he said the estate owed him for the care he had provided his mother over the years. He claimed he had an oral agreement with his mother that after she died she would compensate him for his services. The IRS disallowed the deduction and Mr. Olivo filed a petition with the Tax Court.

The U.S. Tax Court agreed with the IRS that the estate is not entitled to the deduction. Applying the law in New Jersey, which presumes that services to a family member living in the same household are given for free (many states have similar laws), the court ruled that without a written agreement between Ms. Olivo and her son, it must assume that Mr. Olivo provided the services without any expectation he would be repaid.

Check with your CPA to determine if your long-term care expenses are deductible.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, IRS and state tax collections, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Proposals to reform or eliminate the mortgage interest deduction

Thursday, July 21st, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

As lawmakers continue to debate how to handle the nation’s debt and do “something big” rather than simply patch the problem, it seems probable that many broader tax reform issues may resurface during the course of the negotiations. One such issue, which was addressed by President Obama in his 2012 and 2011 budget proposals, is the mortgage interest deduction—one of the largest tax expenditures. According to various estimates, the deduction cost the Treasury Department somewhere between $80 and $103 billion in 2010, and its value over the 10-year budget window is expected to exceed $1 trillion. This post examines the mechanics of the deduction, arguments for and against reforming it, reform proposals, and the projected effect of any changes on both taxpayers and the budget.

Background. Interest paid with respect to a mortgage on real estate is deductible interest on indebtedness. Itemizing taxpayers can deduct their mortgage interest on up to $1 million of qualifying acquisition debt on a qualified principal and, if applicable, secondary residence. A residence includes a house, condominium, cooperative, mobile home, house trailer, or boat. In effect, this deduction reduces the after-tax cost of financing a home. In contrast, taxpayers are not permitted to deduct the costs of renting a home.

Itemizing taxpayers can also deduct interest on up to $100,000 ($50,000 for married individuals filing separately) of home equity debt—i.e., debt secured by a taxpayer’s qualified residence up to the fair market value of the residence, as reduced by the amount of acquisition indebtedness on it.

Arguments for and against reforming the deduction. The mortgage interest deduction is often criticized as being an “upside-down” subsidy, in that it tends to provide greater benefit to taxpayers with higher incomes. The amount of interest paid by lower- and moderate-income taxpayers is less likely to be sufficiently high to make it worthwhile to forego the standard deduction, so they are less likely to claim any benefit from it.

Proponents of the deduction argue that it encourages home ownership and makes it affordable to taxpayers who would otherwise not be able to own a home. Critics claim in response that, rather than encouraging home ownership, the deduction actually encourages middle-class and wealthy taxpayers to take on more debt and buy larger homes than they otherwise would. Further, critics argue that the deduction tends to benefit taxpayers with larger incomes who likely would have purchased a home regardless of the deduction.

M&Q illustration : A married couple who takes out a $150,000 mortgage on January 1, 2011, payable over 30 years with 7% interest, pays $9,584.85 in interest in the first year. Unless the couple has other itemized deductions, they may simply opt for the $11,400 standard deduction.

If the same couple were to double their mortgage to $300,000, same interest and term, their interest payment in the first year is $19,169.71.

If the couple were to again double their mortgage to $600,000, the interest payment would be $38,339.42.

Critics of the deduction also claim that the deduction artificially drives up home prices. However, this same argument is cited by its proponents, who observe that eliminating the deduction could further impact home prices in an already depressed market.

M&Q observation: The effect of driving up prices may have contributed to the problem of “underwater” mortgages, where taxpayers owe more on their homes than the home is actually worth.

Proposals. A number of different proposals have been advanced regarding the mortgage interest deduction. In light of the popularity of the provision, and the strength of the real estate lobby, it appears unlikely that it would be repealed outright. In general, the proposals tend to focus on converting the deduction to a credit, capping the maximum mortgage amount, and limiting the credit to a primary residence.

The President’s Fiscal Commission proposed a 12% nonrefundable credit on up to a $500,000 mortgage, with no credit for a second residence or for home equity. The Debt Reduction Task Force would have a 15% refundable tax credit capped at $25,000. Other proposals suggest a 20% credit, whereas another proposal is to simply have a fixed credit for owning a home as opposed to having a mortgage.

President Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, as well as his 2011 proposal, suggested capping itemized deductions, including mortgage interest, for taxpayers in the top two tax brackets (33% and 35%). Under the proposal, these taxpayers would only be able to reduce their tax liability by a maximum of 28%.

M&Q illustration : The current structure of the mortgage interest deduction reduces the after-tax cost for each $100 borrowed by a taxpayer in the 35% bracket to $65. However, the after-tax cost for each $100 borrowed by a taxpayer in the 10% bracket is $90. In other words, the higher a taxpayer’s tax bracket, the greater relative benefit he will receive from the deduction. The Administration’s proposal would limit the benefit to higher-income taxpayers by five or seven percentage points, such that the after-tax cost for each $100 borrowed would rise to $72.

M&Q observation: The effect of this proposal on taxpayers who are subject to the alternative minimum tax (AMT) would depend on a number of factors, including the taxpayer’s particular mix of income and deductions and the taxpayer’s marginal statutory rate. Although AMT taxpayers are already effectively subject to a 28% limit on deductions, the President’s proposal has an AMT element that would nonetheless result in an increase in the tentative minimum tax liability of certain AMT taxpayers.

Economic effect. Given the amount of foregone revenue from the deduction, the effects of reforming or repealing the provision could be significant.

If the deduction was repealed flat out, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimates that the average tax bill of those who claim the mortgage interest deduction would increase by $710. However, this increase would vary widely among taxpayers—those with $30,000 to $40,000 incomes would face an average increase of $70, whereas taxpayers making over $1 million would face an average increase of $4,000. However, given the popularity of the deduction, its outright repeal seems unlikely.

According to the TPC, replacing the current mortgage interest deduction with a 20% nonrefundable credit, limiting mortgages eligible for the credit to $500,000, and limiting the credit to primary residences would only have a nominal or positive effect on the majority of the tax bills of those who claim the deduction. Again, those who would face the largest increase are taxpayers in the top tax brackets with the largest mortgages.

The economic effect of replacing the deduction with a flat credit for home owners, regardless of whether their home debt-financed, would obviously depend on the amount of the credit. In general, credits are considered more progressive than deductions, and the benefit of a flat credit to higher-income taxpayers would presumably be less than that under the current regime. However, the incentive towards home ownership would remain intact.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that President Obama’s proposal to limit upper-income taxpayers’ itemized deductions to 28% would yield $293,261 million over the 2011 through 2021 period.  This increased revenue would be largely attributable to the limits on mortgage interest and charitable contribution deductions.

Conclusion. While it seems unlikely that the deduction will be repealed outright, it is nonetheless possible that this popular tax expenditure could be somehow reformed or curtailed. The context of the looming debt crisis may well provide the necessary push for lawmakers to take action on this issue. What choices will be made and when remains to be seen—stay tuned.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

Be Sure To Update Your Estate Plan When Your Finances Change

Monday, June 20th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin

In the recent economic downturn, many homes have lost considerable value and stock portfolios have plummeted. If this is the case for you, do you need to change your will? What if your income and assets have increased significantly? If your finances have changed markedly since you wrote your will, you should check your estate plan to see if you need to make any changes.

If your will or estate plan divides your estate into percentages for beneficiaries, then changes in value won’t affect how your estate is distributed. However, if you include specific bequests in your will, a fall or rise in your estate could have consequences. For example, if your estate plan gives $50,000 to your favorite charity and the rest of your estate to your children, a reduction in the value of your estate could mean your children won’t get as much as you intended.

A change in value of assets could also affect your estate plan if you intended to treat your children equally by giving them assets of equal value. For example, suppose your will gives your house worth $500,000 to your daughter and your stock worth $500,000 to your son. If the value of either the house or the stock portfolio increases or decreases significantly in value, your children will no longer receive equal gifts. It is also important to update your estate plan if the overall nature of your assets has changed. For example, if you sold the stock and bought real estate instead, this will affect the distributions to your children.

In addition, if your estate has significantly increased in value, it is important to reassess whether your estate will be subject to estate taxes. In 2008, estates worth more than $2 million are subject to federal estate taxes. In 2009, estates subject to federal taxes must be worth more than $3.5 million. After that, it isn’t clear what the estate tax will be, so it is important to be prepared for any eventuality.

Contact Attorney Jill E. Sugarman at 401-421-5115 or by e-mail at JSugarman@McLaughlinQuinn.com for more information.

No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Asset Protection Planning, Elderlaw/Law For Life, Estate Planning, Tax planning

Tax Tips from the IRS on Capital Gains

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 by Moore McLaughlin
Ten Important Facts About Capital Gains and Losses
 
IRS Tax Tip 2011-35

Did you know that almost everything you own and use for personal or investment purposes is a capital asset? Capital assets include a home, household furnishings and stocks and bonds held in a personal account. When a capital asset is sold, the difference between the amount you paid for the asset and the amount you sold it for is a capital gain or capital loss.

Here are ten facts from the IRS about gains and losses and how they can affect your Federal income tax return.

1. Almost everything you own and use for personal purposes, pleasure or investment is a capital asset.

2. When you sell a capital asset, the difference between the amount you sell it for and your basis – which is usually what you paid for it – is a capital gain or a capital loss.

3. You must report all capital gains.

4. You may deduct capital losses only on investment property, not on property held for personal use.

5. Capital gains and losses are classified as long-term or short-term, depending on how long you hold the property before you sell it. If you hold it more than one year, your capital gain or loss is long-term. If you hold it one year or less, your capital gain or loss is short-term.

6. If you have long-term gains in excess of your long-term losses, you have a net capital gain to the extent your net long-term capital gain is more than your net short-term capital loss, if any.

7. The tax rates that apply to net capital gain are generally lower than the tax rates that apply to other income. For 2010, the maximum capital gains rate for most people is 15%. For lower-income individuals, the rate may be 0% on some or all of the net capital gain. Special types of net capital gain can be taxed at 25% or 28%.

8. If your capital losses exceed your capital gains, the excess can be deducted on your tax return and used to reduce other income, such as wages, up to an annual limit of $3,000, or $1,500 if you are married filing separately.

9. If your total net capital loss is more than the yearly limit on capital loss deductions, you can carry over the unused part to the next year and treat it as if you incurred it in that next year.

10. Capital gains and losses are reported on Schedule D, Capital Gains and Losses, and then transferred to line 13 of Form 1040.

For more information about reporting capital gains and losses, see the Schedule D instructions, Publication 550, Investment Income and Expenses or Publication 17, Your Federal Income Tax. All forms and publications are available at http://www.irs.gov or by calling 800-TAX-FORM (800-829-3676).
No Comments »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Current Events, Tax Current Events and News, Tax planning

« Older Entries